Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1981.02.17BURLINGAME, CALTFORNIA February 17, 19 81 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by John R. Yost, City Pl-anner. ROLL CAIL COIJNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY,MANGTNI, MARTIN COI]NCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE MINUTES Minutes of the and adopted. regular meeting of February 2,l-9 8f were approved CONSIDERATION TO BID AWARD - I{ATER SYSTEM BOULEVARD, JOB NO. O3O IMPROVEMENTS, AIRPORT Director of Publi-c Works revj-ewed bids received on this project, recommended award. to Manuel C. Jardim Inc. with bid of $139,813,below engineerrs estj-mate of $2I9,750. and 358 RESOLUTTON NO. 13-81 ''AWARDING CONTRACT, 1980 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD, JOB NO. 030" (Manuel C, Jardim,Inc., $139,813.00, bids on file in office of City Clerk) was intro- duced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously on ro11 call vote. ORDINANCE SECOND READING - HEARING ORDINANCE NO. I197 - "ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSTONS.'' Council had received letter ot 2/12/8L from Brobeck, Phleger, andHarrison, attorneys representing FHC Services, with review of ordinance sections and suggestions for their changes; letter of2/ll/81 from Northpark Tenants Committee, also reviewing ordinance and suggesting changes; and report ot 2/13/81 from City Attorneywith opinions on these suggested changes. City Attorney reviewed process by which this ordinance came beforethe Council, starting with unsuccessful Ordj-nance 1188 in October,f980 which tied condominium conversions to amount of rental- housing;the subsequent Ordinance 1189 declaring moratorium on conversions, and the following development of Ordinance 1197 for consideration. He noted the apparent difference in Council opinion on Ordinance 1197, and suggested they be ardare of the foflowing options:1. Adopt proposed ord.inance. 2. Adopt ordinance limiting con-versions on the basis of replacement housing. 3. Adopt ordinanceprohibiting conversions. Council discussed their differences on Ord.inance 1].97 which includedthe difficulty of its administration, the fact that senior citizensare given discounts but there are no provisions for other groups such as young couples and. families \"rith children, the time constrai-ntsof discussing this ordinance item by item with the possibility of nolaw on the books if emergency ordinance were not continued during thisprocess, the reduction of rental stock and increases in rents as aresult of conversions, the fact that the original ordinance in effectprohibited conversions, the percentage of tenants necessary to agree toconversions and required to purchase, the question of speculation in condominium conversions, and other considerations. 177 A regular meet.ing of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaJ-1 CounciL Chambers. Meeting was calledto order at 8:00 P.M. by Mayor Martin. r 178 Councilman Amstrup did not feel Ordinance 1197 was City or for its people, especially in view of the needed its rental stock. ORDINANCE NO. 1199 'URGENCY ORDINANCE best for the fact the City EXTENDING ORDINANCE IMPOSING TO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINITIMS. who moved its adoption, Northpark, disfiked the t have a chance to exDress to wait for another ordinance. Mayor Martin opened public hearing, cautioning audience that re- marks should be directed only to the urgency ordinance. Jim Wager, 1060 Carolan, representing Northpark tenants, was in favor of the urgency ordinance so that a meanj-ngful ordinance coufd be developed during its tenure. Tracy Thompson, 1060 Carol-an, questioned when permanent ordinance would be discussed. Mayor Martin explained the reasons for the emergency ordinance and the opportunity it gave for discussion and hearing of another ordinance. Frank Vignand, 1015 Cadillac Way, approved the emergency ordinance because he thought there was a real housing problem j-n Burlingame. MORATORIUM UPON APARTMENT CONVERSIONS was introduced by Councilwoman Barton, second by Councilman Amstrup. Charl-es Pinkham, attorney represen extension because people present d their views, and it was too much d Jim Massengill, representing FCH Services, meaning of the moratorium extension was to consideration of ordinance 118 8. tingid no elay was concerned that make possible the the re- There r^rere no further conments and the public hearing was declared closed. ORDINANCE No. 1199 passed its first and second readj-ng and was adopted on unanimous rol-1 call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1198 "ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RENTAL HOUSII]G REPLACEMENT STANDARDS AND TENANT PROTECT ION MEASURES ON CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS,. was introduced for first readj-ng by Council-woman Barton. Mayor Martin announced there would be a public hearing on Ordinance No. 1198 at the next regular Council- meeti-ng on March 2, 1981. RECESS There was a short RENEWAL OF PERMITS recess at 9:l-5 P.M. after which meeting resumed' - LUXOR CAB COMPANY OF SAN MATEO City Cterk's memo of February 9, 1981 stated three permits had been granted Luxor Cab Company of San Mateo on July 7, 1980 to operate in Burlingame for a period of six monthsi and attached memo from chief of police dalLed 2/5/81 stated his department had not received any complaints on this company since issuance of their license' -2- Mayor Martin inclined to support Ordinance f197 because it gave a method of conversions but with definite restriction. He emphasized this is an ordinance for the entire City not just for Northpark. Councilman Crosby approved ordinance 1197, considering that it gave a great deal of control on conversions. Councilwoman Barton was concerned with preservation of rental stocki thought 1197 would be too difficult to administer, and preferred the original ordinance based on the amount of rental stock. Councilman Mangini was not against conversions, but was in favor of strict controls. He was in favor of the original ordinance No- 1188. -1 L79 Councilman Amstrup moved that Cab be extended indefinitely, on unanimous vote. these three permits given Luxor second by Councilman Crosby, carried AWARD OE CABLE TELEVISION F'RANCHISE George Page, cable television consultant, Lake Oswego, Oreqon, discussed his rationale and method of evaluating applicants whlch placed Teleprompter at the top of the list of applicants. He then discussed Teleprompterrs letter of January 14, f981, which modified and substantially increased their proposal because of their proposed acquisj-tion by westinghouse Broadcasting Company. In Teleprompter's letter, seven increased concessions were made in the areas of: 1. Bonds, 2. Cash Security, 3. one year per- formance, 4. Fixed negotiating period, 5. Proposed acquisition (divestiture projected as late as 1984,) 6. Local programming, 7- "Most favored customer. " Mr. Page argued that regardless of the fact the City would chance transfer of the franchise to another company with the necessity of negotiating a new franchise contract, Teleprompler's concessj-ons would make this situationof benefit to the City. He also noted Teleprompterrs position at the top of his ratings list. However, he recommended that if Council did not choose Teleprompter, they start at the top of his list for consideration of other companies. In response to questj-on from Councilwoman Barton, City Attorney stated that the FCC has allowed Westinghouse to purchase 308 of the Teleprompter stock, ancl there is nothing iIIega1 about granting a franchise to Teleprompter as long as the City knows it will be sold eventually to someone else. Council questioned Mr. Page extensively on several areas. on the question of whether Council should consider other companies' possible enhancement of their offers, he was negative; anil considered i.here would be no problems with Teleprompter's completion of the contract because of their bontls, and because if there were any lack of good faith the City could go to the next company on the l-ist' on i.he question of how payments from the $250,000 security fund would be determj-ned in event of default, he stateal that would have to be addressed in the negotiation process. He noted there would be nothing to deter any other franchisee from selling his franchise the day aiter it was awarded. In response to question if City could insist on the same terms hrith Teleprompter's buyer, he stated that would have to be negotiated. To these and other questions he gave his opinion that Teleprompter woulcl be the Cityrs best choice' After prolonged Council discussion, Mayor Martin pointed out that decision musi be made, and asked for vote on Teleprompter as the No. I rated company. Teleprompter failetl on the following ro11 caII vote 3 AYES: NAYES: COUNCILMEN: MANGINI COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MARTIN Mayor Martin then asked for vote on Capital cities comparry second highest in the consultant's rating. this company by unanimous ro11 call vote. In response to questions from Mayor Martin, Mr. Page stated the next piocess would be that of negotiating the franchise agreementi that a time timit should be set, preferably 50-75 days. Mayor Martin objected to the present consultant's remaining nelotiations, but rest of Council wereagreeable; and it was teimineil Page with City Manager would negotiate with Capital and that Councit wanted the same offer that Teleprompter v,as to give. Cable rn,c., the Counc j-1 approved for de-Cities; wi 11in g response to question from Councilwoman Barton, Wayne C. Kennis capltal Cities affirmed that his company would be wiJ-Iing to make In of -3- -- ---1 1E0 the same agreements as Teleprompter, and that his company would be willing to begin negotiations the l-atter part of this week. A representative of United Cable Television protested that many of the other companies could match Capital Cities' offer, and suggested that Council ask each company present, because Capital Cities has not yet built and completed a system. Hor"/ever, Mayor Martin stated that the Council had reached a firm deci-sion and it would stand. RECES S After a short recess, Councif reconvened. HEARING - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOWNTOWN PARKING CHANGES OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY, AND PARKING REPORT SECTION II Director of Public Works reviewed Section fI of Traffic, Safety and Parking report, revised 2/10/81 , which proposes changing from two hour to ten hour parking and installing meters on certain sectionsof Douglas, Bellevue, Primrose, Park and Lorton Avenue; changing from tvro to ten hour parking on Lot L and part of Lot K; changing from five hour to ten hour parking on certaj-n sections of Howard Avenue and Southern Pacific parking area. He stated residents and businesses in these areas had been notified. Richard Foley, Chairman of Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, spoke in support of the p1an, noting that meters need not be in- stalled immediately as long as authorization for meters is given. Mayor Martin acknowledged letter from Elizabeth Ug1ow, 1121 Douglas,objecting to change because it would impair residential and guestparking. He then opened public hearing on these changes. Wal-t Weaver, 1101 Douglas; Ruth Silvas, l\21 Douglas; Rosemary Weaver, 1101 Douglas; and Jane Ladley, lLZ]- Douglas, all strong]y objected to change on Douglas because of its inconvenience to homeowners, guests, and apartment dwellers aIike. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, questioned why all spaces on Howard should not be the same, suggested meter fees be raised, antl suggested certain people be allowed to buy 30 day parking medallions. Harry craham, 1224 Paloma, supported all changes, noting parking district d own to\,/n will be crowded by new construction of officebuildings. Council discussed in detail. They agreed to raise meter rates to 50C for the time being for all day parking; delayed changes on Douglas for further review by Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissj-on;but accepted the other recorunendat ions by the Commission. City Attorney was directed to prepare ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR Memo of February 6, 1981 from Director of Public Works stated thatin reviewing this project with CalTrans and the Federal Highway Admini-stration it was deemed that impacts would be identified weII enough with the study of three alternatives rather than four. Resultant saving woufd be $3,100. 2. PROPOSITION 1 (PARKLANDS ACT) ALLOCATION APPROVAL Letter of February 5, 1981 from San Mateo County Recreaticn Department attached prorosed allocations cities, and requested Burlingame aporoval. Parks and for County 3. REPLACEMENT OF POLICE VEHICLE Memo of February 5, 1981 from PoLice Chief requested approval for early replacement of unmarked vehicle recently damaged in accident, and scheduLed to be replaced in next budget. Cost would be ap- proximately $6,000. -4- 1. AIRPORT BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT EIR STUDY - DELETION OF 4th ALTERNATIVE COST 181 4. APPROVAL OF SEWER MAIN REPAIR EXPENSE OF $7 ,2t9 . 43 Memo of February 10, 1981 from Directorapproval of this unanticipated expensefluent line to South San Francisco. Public Works requestedto break in sewer ef- of due 5, CLAIM OF BETHANTE CASCONE - DENIAL RECOMMENDED Memo of February 10, 1981 from City Attorney recorunended denial-of this claim because of its occurence on a state highway wherethe City has no liability or control over any alleged defects inthe intersect ion. ,'RESOLUTION ACCEPTTNG 1980 WASHINGTON PARK IMPROVEMENTS (JOB NO': 016. ) At staff request this was deleted from consent cafendarfor consj-deration at a future meeting. b. RESOLUTION NO. 14-81 "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SOLIDS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MILLBRAE AND BURLINGAI,IE WASTEWATER TRNAT- MENT PLANTS FOR THE NORTH BAYSIDE SYSTEM UNIT - PROJF]CT 906A. " STATE LOAN FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION - STREET LIGHT CONVERSIOI{S AUTHORIZATION OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR $15O,OOO. 7 Memo of 2/71/81 from City Manager recommending this filing attached concurrence of 2/10/87 from Fj-nance Director and fuII report dated 2/9/8L from Director of Public works detailing purpose of this loan and its application in converting oId street lights to more efficient high pressure sodium lights. 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVTSION MAP CHAPIN AVENUE 8-UNIT OFFICE CONDOMINIUM , L424 Memo of February 10, 1981 from City Engineer of this tentative subdivision mao with three by Planning Commission. recommended approvalconditions as approved 9. RESOLUTION NO. 15-8I "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IiEI\,1ORAI{DUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOINT ACTION PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT COI'iMUNITY ROUNDTABLE" ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT RENEI^IALS SHERATON INN CHARLEY B ROWNS I 2 Letter of February 10, 198I from Burfingame Police recommended permits for both these establjstments be 12-month period. Services renewe d Bureaufor a Councilman Manqini moved both these for a period of one year, second by unanimously with exception of Mayor on Sheraton Inn because of possible RECRUITMENT OF COORDINATOR PARK DIRECTOR AND APP ROVAL OF PARK DEVELOPMENT City Manager's memo of February 11, 1981, attaching report of January 5, 1981 from Park Director, requested Council approval for recruitment for Park Director's position because of his impending retirement on July 1, 1981, and approva] of a Park Development Coordinator on a one-year basis. This would be in lieu of fillingr a vacancy which now exj-sts for park maintenance worker I. Park Directort s memo explained proposed work for this coordinator, which 1Ij-5- 6. RESOLUTIONS a. Council designated Councilwoman Barton as member on this roundtable and Councilman Amstrup as alternate. Councilman Crosby moved approval of consent cal-endar with exception of ltem 6a, second by Councilman Mangini, carried unanimously. entertainment permits be renewed Council-man Amstrup, carried Martin I s abstention from voteconflict of interest. r 182 would be mainly in completion of present capital projects, planning proposed projects for five-year capital improvement p1an, and making applications for State grants. The coordinator's position would be--on an unclassified basis. Council approved this concept. Councifman Mangini moved. recruitment be approved for these positions, seconded by Councilwoman Barton, carried unanimously. OLD BUS INESS BARRICADES AT OXFORD,/CAMBRIDGE,/EL CAMINO INTERSECTION Material received by Council on this subject: Letters protesting barricades from: Mr. and Mrs. Eugene A. Hannan, 1400 Edgehill Drivei David A. Smith, 1312 Mills Avenuei and Imogen Aten, 1456 Ef Camino ReaIi N.J. & Gilda Visintin, 141-1 Paloma. Letter of February 11, 1981 from Terry Nagel, 1300 Mil1s Avenue, requesting permission to address Council on this subject. Letters approving barricades from: Anne Stoye, 1131 Oxford Road; Anna B. Alexander, 1504 Highway Road; Robert H. Gans, 1112 Cambridge Road; W. Harvey Moore, 1109 Cambridge Road. Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission: Study of AdeIj.ne, Oxford, Cambridge, Ef Camino Real Intersection, covering goa1s, historyalternative j-mprovements studied, and impact on adjacent streets. Minutes of Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meeting of February9, 1981 with staff and neighborhood representatives which culminatedin the commission's decision to continue the temporary closure of Oxford-Cambridge for the fu11 90 day period because valid resufts of the trial closure could not be expected in less than that period. Director of public Works reviewed the history of the barricades andthe open meeting of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission whichresulted in the decision to keep them up. The following people spoke, some at length, against continuinq the trial period for the barricades: Terry Nagel, 1300 MiIIs Avenue; Mavis Karalius, 1108 Mi1ls; Edie Farley, l-135 Rosedale; Chris Ganas, 1423 Laguna; Mrs. Davirl Mccowan, 11I5 Oxfordi Lee Stein, 1404 Mil1s; Karf Vorsatz, 1133 Dufferin; Ed Hanson, 1414 Paloma; a Mr. O. K. Kephart, 1480 Highway Road, Rose and Mike Spinelli,I30f Mil1s Avenue. They were all concerned about the impact of traffic on streets near Oxford; the hazard of the Mi11s,/81 Camino blind intersection; the fact that traffic impact shoulil be addressed over the entire area, not just on one streeti statements were made that 14 homes on Oxford did not want the barricades; the Commission decision was made so there would be no lack of credi-bility with CalTrans; the real problem is Adeline and El Camino; alternatives offered have not been explored; one person who signed petition on Oxford has changed mind in view of results. They also noted that safety vehicles can come only up California Drivei that a three way signal at Adeline and El- Camino would be valuabfe. Marylou Bafdra, 1145 Cambridge, spoke as representative of a group approvj-ng barricades. She reviewed long-time efforts by the Burlingame Gate Improvement Association to get traffic safety in this area, meetj-ngs with the City and CalTrans for a period ofyears, the subsequent ToPICS report and the 1975 Nol-te report with no action on either. She sunmed up that in 22 years of effort no significant result had been seen until this experi-ment with the barricades, and urged that they be kept in place for the 90 day trial period. James Fehlhaber, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioner, reported on that commission's consideration of the 3-phase signaling at existing intersections, and rejection of this idea because of loss of green time on Et Camino which woul-d be unacceptable to -6- I 183 Ca1Trans. He noted that 4-phase signaling would not affect Ef Camino but would congest side streets. Director of Public Works confirmed that 3-phase signals had been studied and would be rejected by State because of time foss onEl Camino. He cons j-dered State might approve of -phase signali- zation. This would efiminate yeIlow light at Adeline. 4-phase would take 3-4 months at the earli-est for the State to install. In response to Council questj-ons, he confirmed that leaving the barricades up to get accurate traffic data would help the Cityrsposition with CalTrans. council discussed at considerable length. In response to question from Mrs. Nagel asking for Cityrs assurance that the barricades would come down after 90 days, the Council agreed that after 90 days they woul-d ask that CalTrans take the barricades down. After further discussion, Council upheld the Traffic, Safety and Parklng Commission's decision to keep the barricades up for 90 days in oriler to get valid traffic data, and to approach CalTrans for consideration of 4-phase signalization j-n these intersections. APPROVALS WARRANTS PAYROLL Payroll for January 1981, Check Nos. 23498 through 24123 in the amount of $414,852.3L approved for payment on motion of Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Amstrup, carried unanimously. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. Report of January 28, 1981 from Department of Housing and Community Devetopment on requirements for Housing Element enacted by AB 2853. 2. Letter of February 3, 1981 from Center for Independence of the Disabled, attaching report. 3. Letter of January 30, l-981 from Regj-ona1 Planning Committee. 4. Letter from San Mateo County Safety Councif re Sixth Annual Awards Banquet. Letter of February 9, 1981 from Assemblyman Robert Naylor SCA 7. Letter of January 30, 1981 from the National Arbor Day Foundation announcing Burlingame has been named. as a 1980 Tree City USA. 7. City Planner - 2/L0/81 transmittal - negative decl-arations. 8. Report, San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau for January, 19 81. 9. Treasurer's report, January 31, l-981. 10. Minutes: Beautification Commission, January 8; Library Board, January 20i Planning Commission, February 9, 1981-. the opening of San Mateo ADJOURNMENT re 6. Mayor Martin noted the next Council of Mayors meeting, availabl-e on the Human Services Coordinating Committee County, and JPAC meeting on Saturday, February 21. City Attorney noted bill now in legistature that would al1ow cities authority to terminate annexation proceedings, and suggested Council support. 6^2r fl Evelvn I{. Hill -7- City Clerk 7J-!4 Warrant Nos. 7987 through 8299, duly audited, in the amount of $618,533.70 were approved for payment on motion of Councifman Crosby, second by Councilman Amstrup, carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 P M.